|
One idea that popped up recently is that the counterspell rules could be improved, particularly if counterspelling could be done as an immediate action, in response to the spellcasting to be countered.
Director of Games
|
One idea that popped up recently is that the counterspell rules could be improved, particularly if counterspelling could be done as an immediate action, in response to the spellcasting to be countered.
I am a little concerned that this would lead to folks calling for a check to identify every spell they see being cast on the off chance that they could counter it. This could really slow down play, especially with multiple casters in the group.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
One idea that popped up recently is that the counterspell rules could be improved, particularly if counterspelling could be done as an immediate action, in response to the spellcasting to be countered.I am a little concerned that this would lead to folks calling for a check to identify every spell they see being cast on the off chance that they could counter it. This could really slow down play, especially with multiple casters in the group.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
All the groups I play in already call for checks to ID spells being cast anyway, simply for the info it provides. I thought that was standard practice.
|
One idea that popped up recently is that the counterspell rules could be improved, particularly if counterspelling could be done as an immediate action, in response to the spellcasting to be countered.I am a little concerned that this would lead to folks calling for a check to identify every spell they see being cast on the off chance that they could counter it. This could really slow down play, especially with multiple casters in the group.
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
beats readying an action to counterspell and turning out that you can't counterspell so you loose your action. That happened once and the player refused to ever try and counterspell again, even after they could cast dispel magic.
|
In my experience, counterspelling is never used. Even with a few feats to improve it and / or a special prestige class ability to make it better, it's *still* not a palatable option.
I would love to see, if nothing else, the Abjurer specialist Wizard be able to Counterspell using any Abjuration spell as an immediate action, and perhaps even getting a +1 to the caster level roll for each level of spell over the level of the spell he's attempting to counter that he uses. (So that if he uses a 5th level Abjuration to try and counter a Fireball, he gets a +2 to the check, for example.)
He'd still be restricted to using Abjuration spells, and still be limited by the inherent imbalance between PC and NPC levels (as an NPC 'big bad caster' will often be a couple levels higher than the party, to provide a CR-appropriate challenge, meaning that he will have spells that simply *cannot* be counterspelled by the party) and uses per day (the NPC can blow all of his spells in one encounter, if he wants) as well as the tactics limitations when faced with any encounter that doesn't involve spellcasters (i.e. many, if not most of them, as even the spell-like abilities of demon/etc encounters wouldn't be eligible to be counterspelled), and I don't feel that this would be at all unbalanced.
If Counterspelling is going to remain a non-starter for everyone else, I'd at least like to see it be a viable choice for an Abjurer.
Just wanted to add my voice that I've never, ever had a PC try to do this. I've not had one of my NPC's do it either...it's too little payoff for too much risk.
I wouldn't mind it being an immediate action or something similar. Something to make it used more frequently would be good, I think.
|
|
Just wanted to add my voice that I've never, ever had a PC try to do this. I've not had one of my NPC's do it either...it's too little payoff for too much risk.
I wouldn't mind it being an immediate action or something similar. Something to make it used more frequently would be good, I think.
It happened a whopping once for me :)
|
|
I've never seen counterspell attempted in my group. Another poster stated that the only counterspelling in any of his games was a custom build wizard specifically designed for counterspelling.
My own feeling is that these rules should either be greatly simplified or entirely dropped. It doesn't sound like dropping the counterspell rules would greatly impact anyone's game.
Immediate-action counterspelling is quite powerful, actually. I've run into guys who prepare Contingency for Duelward (CArcane, SpellCompendium), which pretty much allows them to do that, and it's pretty badass.
But letting everybody do it? Yikes.
Anyways, as to why Counterspelling is never used... personally, I'll just ready something like Maximized Fireball or Arc Lightning in response to an enemy spellcasting. Even if the save is made, the Concentration DC is so high it's undoable.
-Matt
|
|
You know what might make counter-spelling a more viable option without making it an immediate action. Change it so that all you need to counter a spell is a spell of equivalent level, instead of the exact same spell or a spell that says it counters that spell. Then the only time a spellcaster has to worry about loosing an action to readying to counterspell is if the opponent has higher level spells than them.
How about this:
Making counterspelling an immediate action if, and only if, the counterspeller is the target of the spell (and actually the target, not just in the area of effect). This means that multiple casters in the party don't become a headache, the rule change doesn't become a huge power boost to casters, but you can still have the classical mage's duel with colliding energy beams.
You know what might make counter-spelling a more viable option without making it an immediate action. Change it so that all you need to counter a spell is a spell of equivalent level, instead of the exact same spell or a spell that says it counters that spell. Then the only time a spellcaster has to worry about loosing an action to readying to counterspell is if the opponent has higher level spells than them.
Other than preloaded magic items counter spelling as an immediate action, I'll add that I've never seen a PC use it in game. I've only had NPC ever use Dispel Magic unless the PC's used a repeated tactic against an organized foe. Its a lot less frustrating for me to lose a readied action against the PC's than it is for a PC to lose an action against the NPCs.
Lastnight's solution is about the only solution I've worked out myself but I've added that the spells need to be in the same schools unless dispel magic is used just to try and stay somewhat in spirit of the OGL rules.
Immediate-action counterspelling is quite powerful, actually. I've run into guys who prepare Contingency for Duelward (CArcane, SpellCompendium), which pretty much allows them to do that, and it's pretty badass.
But letting everybody do it? Yikes.
Anyways, as to why Counterspelling is never used... personally, I'll just ready something like Maximized Fireball or Arc Lightning in response to an enemy spellcasting. Even if the save is made, the Concentration DC is so high it's undoable.
-Matt
I can't agree more. Though I admit that counterspelling definitely needs a boost in utility, Immediate actions aren't the way to go with counterspells current effect (in my opinion). If anything, wouldn't you have everybody grabbing the new counterspell? Combat spellcasting would change drastically.
And even if not everyone grabs the "new counterspell" and I'm over exaggerating, wouldn't it still be possible for a group of people to do it and become powerful anti-casters? Yeah sure, throw up some more mundane combat against them, but even so, I wouldn't be in favor of having to choose between the two when preparing for combat.
But also, let me explain: I don't mean that counterspelling shouldn't be an immediate action, I just think counterspelling should be tweaked in its purpose, or how hard it is to do, etc. Something that makes it less likely to be abused (and I think that this should be handled carefully; counterspelling can easily fall out of line with the proper tweaking).
Maybe if there were a way to reduce the effectiveness of the spell based on the spell its countered with. That, alongside perhaps, making it an immediate action? I'm honestly not sure; this suggestion may seem too "out there," but I figured I'd throw something in. Perhaps it just needs an upping in the difficulty of it, though in all honesty, I have seen very little of it and have little idea of how hard it already may be.
I have a player running a sorcerer in my Age of Worms campaign. He used Dispel Magic a few times as a counterspell until he realized that he could just hit a caster with a readied Orb of Force. The damage was typically enough to make a Concentration check hard even for an opponent with max ranks in Concentration.
|
|
I have a player running a sorcerer in my Age of Worms campaign. He used Dispel Magic a few times as a counterspell until he realized that he could just hit a caster with a readied Orb of Force. The damage was typically enough to make a Concentration check hard even for an opponent with max ranks in Concentration.
And that's the problem with counterspelling.
|
The current counterspell rules are so bad that either the whole concept should be abandoned or completely reworked.
I would suggest that instead of any spell being used to counter a lower level spell that a counterspell must be of equal or higher level AND be of the same school. Specialist Wizards get a bonus for countering or overcoming a counterspell.
I would also like to see it become an immediate action.
And casters would not be counterspelling everything that comes their way either. Simply because you CAN do it doesn't mean you should. Casters have limited resources for casting spells. If you spend them all for counterspelling that is fine. Leaves you with no castable spells of your own. Your choice.
Another reason for immediate actions is the drama it creates. I make a spell check to see what he is casting...WHat you mean he's casting Disintegrate on the halfling... crap...I counterspell with the last spell I have to save his life.
Drama... Action...Danger...
All enhanced with making counterspell better.
The drawback is some people get counterspell happy and eventually learn they need to strike a good balance.
I know, Jason, you fear everyone will be checking every spell all the time, but casters usually do already, and so what... make it a simple thing to check so it does not waste time.
Perhaps 10 + spell level is all that you need to idetify a spell. No resisted identifies (unless a feat grants the ability). *BTW makes a nice use for a caster feat- they need more useful utility feats anyway*
Besides if someone gets out of hand with it the GM should step in. And let's face it a player can get out of hand with just about anything. If we made rules with them in mind there would be no game to begin with.
The current counterspell rules are so bad that either the whole concept should be abandoned or completely reworked.
I'll agree with this. A rule that is never used just wastes space in the book.
And the current rule is never used. There are many better ways to stop the bad guy from casting if you have to ready an action.
In Arcana Evolved, there was a feat, Brandish Magical Might, that let you counterspell without using any spell slots, and with 1d20 + caster level + spellcasting mod (so that success was easy). Using that rule, having your wizard or sorcerer ready an action to counterspell every round against an enemy caster of higher level was a very good strategy. Contrast that to 3.5 counterspelling, which is, as pointed out above, about the lamest excuse for a rule there ever was.
|
So Lets Assume the present system is Scrapped.
What else have we got?
I personally like a Counterspell spell of every level, all abjuration, all immediate, which can counter any spell of it's level or lower.
I also like the idea of the Feat + Skill based version. Though preferably one that will occasionally fail, instead of being automatic. Which is then Augmented with things like Spell Focus for appropriate schools.
What else we got?
|
|
[pasted over from the other counterspell thread...]
I agree that counterspelling is totally awkward and needs to be reworked. As others have said, I've NEVER seen it used in any game I've ever played. I was trying out a few alternatives, here they are for comment:
A) Ready an action and if your opponent begins to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (just as in 3.5). If you succeed and identify the spell she is casting, you may counter it with ANY spell of the same level and appropriate type (arcane/divine).
* The idea here is you are interfering with the magical energies before they have fully become a fireball or lightning bolt or whatever, and that all 3rd-level spells contain the same amount of magical potential. This doesn't get around having to ready an action (and potentially waste it), but at least you'll be more likely to pull off the counterspell.
B) Ready an action and if you opponent begins to cast a spell, you may make a counterspell attack. To make a counterspell attack, expend any spell you have using the formula: d20 + 1/2 the spell level + your total Spellcraft bouns vs. the DC of the spell you are attempting to counter (10 + the spell level + the caster's Int bonus). If your match or beat the DC, your opponent's spell is ruined; if your total is lower than the DC, you still spend the spell but do not interrupt her spell.
* Here I wanted to make the counterspell more like a regular attack, rolling a d20 vs. DC of the spell. I went with DC (10 + spell level + Int bonus) rather than the old '15 + spell level' because most people already have the DCs of their spells written somewhere; no new calculations, no matter how simple = good. My formula is a little cumbersome at first, though. I wanted to include both Spellcraft ranks and Int bonus, so total Spellcraft bonus made sense, but the level of the spell expended had to matter too; I went with 1/2 to represent that the spell you are giving up isn't the exact same spell as the one being cast. Maybe if you do counter with the same spell, you could drop the 1/2 and get full spell levels. It might be better, then, to phrase it more like a skill check: "Make a Spellcraft check vs. the DC of the spell being countered. Add 1/2 the level of the spell you gave up to your Spellcraft check, or, if the spell you gave up is the same as the spell being countered, add the full level of the spell you gave up to your Spellcraft check."
Neither of my ideas deal with the whole readied action problem. Honestly, if I were going to try to mess up somebodies spell, I'd have to wait for her to start casting. Readying an action - and potentially wasting that action - seem fair as long as you've got a pretty good chance of killing her spell, which both of my ideas achieve by allowing you to use any spell, not just the exact spell being cast.
I also agree that some feats that improve counterspelling would be awesome, things that just add bonuses to your Spellcraft checks or that have additional effects if you succeed (entangling, stealing her spell, stunning her, doing actual damage, etc.)
So Lets Assume the present system is Scrapped.
What else have we got?
I personally like a Counterspell spell of every level, all abjuration, all immediate, which can counter any spell of it's level or lower.
I also like the idea of the Feat + Skill based version. Though preferably one that will occasionally fail, instead of being automatic. Which is then Augmented with things like Spell Focus for appropriate schools.
Of the two, adding counterspell I, II, etc. and removing the counterspell function of dispel magic would require the least rule modification. It would also make abjurers really nasty against spellcasting foes.
The feat + skill version could lead to some interesting characters, such as a multiclassed fighter with a couple caster levels focused on fighting and counterspelling (a wizard's nightmare). For balance purposes, a feat + skill system would have to be non-automatic (skill check DC of 10 + caster level + spell level at least, possibly modified by the casting ability modifier) and require something like a readied move action at least (preventing a full attack + counterspell or a move + counterspell + spell).
Having both systems would allow characters to pick and choose which one to use in various situations.
|
|
Of the two, adding counterspell I, II, etc. and removing the counterspell function of dispel magic would require the least rule modification. It would also make abjurers really nasty against spellcasting foes.
The feat + skill version could lead to some interesting characters, such as a multiclassed fighter with a couple caster levels focused on fighting and counterspelling (a wizard's nightmare). For balance purposes, a feat + skill system would have to be non-automatic (skill check DC of 10 + caster level + spell level at least, possibly modified by the casting ability modifier) and require something like a readied move action at least (preventing a full attack + counterspell or a move + counterspell + spell).
Having both systems would allow characters to pick and choose which one to use in various situations.
I like the Readied Status, from some other thread, it's simple and resolves several issues, I suggest looking it up.
For a Skill + Feat, I'd say DC: 10 + CL*2.
Make the Limit Identifying the spell, and make that passive by Knowledge Skills, 2 points of Knowledge Arcana per spell level for arcane spells, Knowledge Religion for Divine spells, etc...
But yeah, as an addition Counterspell I, II, etc, seems like it could give abjuration some teeth.
For a Skill + Feat, I'd say DC: 10 + CL*2.
Which would require a skill check DC of 50 to counterspell a 20th level caster; given a hard limit of + 20 ranks + 3 class skill + 3 Skill Focus + ability modifier on skill checks (unless including extra modifiers), it makes counterspelling almost impossible in a high level game without requiring a starting score of 20, all advances in that score, +5 from wishes, and a +6 stat booster just to gain a 50% chance of success (36 ability score for a +13 modifier to grant a +39 on the skill check) against an equal level caster. A DC 10 + caster level + spell level + casting attribute modifier scales reasonably well with the skill system as is, resulting in a 50% chance to counterspell a 0-level spell by a caster of the same level and ability modifier as a cross-class skill, 50% vs. 3rd level spells as a class skill or with Skill Focus, or 50% vs. 6th level spells as a class skill with Skill Focus.
After some thought, perhaps the feat + skill counterspelling could look something like this:
Counterspell
You can use your knowledge of magic to counter spells cast by others.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 1 rank, cast 1st level spells
Benefit: To counterspell, you must select an opponent and ready an action. If the target attempts to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 10 + caster level + spell level + caster ability modifier) to identify and counter the spell. This completes the readied action.
Improved Counterspell
You are very skilled at countering spells.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 8 ranks, Counterspell
Benefit: When counterspelling, you ready a move action instead of a standard action. In addition, you add +1 to the Spellcraft check to counter the spell.
Greater Counterspell
You have mastered the ability to counterspell.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 16 ranks, Counterspell, Improved Counterspell
Benefit: When counterspelling, you ready a swift action. In addition, you add +1 to the Spellcraft check to counter the spell; this stacks with the bonus from Improved Counterspell.
For completeness, Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus would each modify the Spellcraft check and/or the DC when dealing with spells of that school by +1. With counterspell I, II, etc. as spells, the existing (mostly unusable) counterspell rules can be scrapped.
After some thought, perhaps the feat + skill counterspelling could look something like this:
Counterspell
You can use your knowledge of magic to counter spells cast by others.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 1 rank, cast 1st level spells
Benefit: To counterspell, you must select an opponent and ready an action. If the target attempts to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 10 + caster level + spell level + caster ability modifier) to identify and counter the spell. This completes the readied action.Improved Counterspell
You are very skilled at countering spells.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 8 ranks, Counterspell
Benefit: When counterspelling, you ready a move action instead of a standard action. In addition, you add +1 to the Spellcraft check to counter the spell.Greater Counterspell
You have mastered the ability to counterspell.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 16 ranks, Counterspell, Improved Counterspell
Benefit: When counterspelling, you ready a swift action. In addition, you add +1 to the Spellcraft check to counter the spell; this stacks with the bonus from Improved Counterspell.
I'm a little tired right now (happy new years! or something), but, wouldn't expending an action to counter an action of limited amount ( a spell, for instance), be slightly imbalanced? I mean, I'm sort of light headed right now, and wouldn't a feat that doesn't require you to lose a spell of some slot or lower be a balancing factor worth keeping in the overall effect?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'm against counterspelling being easier (i.e. faster) than normal spell casting. Wouldn't mind if you could counter by using the next turn's standard action, but that would call for a whole new mechanic.
I do think counterspelling could be cleaned up by letting any spell of the same school work, as long as it was equal or higher level (excepting metamagic).
|
|
After some thought, perhaps the feat + skill counterspelling could look something like this:
Counterspell
You can use your knowledge of magic to counter spells cast by others.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 1 rank, cast 1st level spells
Benefit: To counterspell, you must select an opponent and ready an action. If the target attempts to cast a spell, make a Spellcraft check (DC 10 + caster level + spell level + caster ability modifier) to identify and counter the spell. This completes the readied action.Improved Counterspell
You are very skilled at countering spells.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 8 ranks, Counterspell
Benefit: When counterspelling, you ready a move action instead of a standard action. In addition, you add +1 to the Spellcraft check to counter the spell.Greater Counterspell
You have mastered the ability to counterspell.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 16 ranks, Counterspell, Improved Counterspell
Benefit: When counterspelling, you ready a swift action. In addition, you add +1 to the Spellcraft check to counter the spell; this stacks with the bonus from Improved Counterspell.With counterspell I, II, etc. as spells, the existing (mostly unusable) counterspell rules can be scrapped completely.
OK, I think I get this but wanna be sure.
Counterspell in general is gone, unless you have the Counterspell feat?
I like it if that is what you guys are meaning. Then, even if you need to use a readied action it is naturally a part of the caster's normal strategy and not a big deal. Characters that do not take it don't worry about it unless they get Counterspelled- then too darn bad. It becomes something a caster can choose to focus on, and something the GM has to plan ahead to use against the PCs. Not everyone is gonna be Counterspelling.
This could also lead to some nice feat chains. Additional feats can have interesting effects- spell backwashes over its caster, spell's caster is stunned or immobilized for a round, spell causes Xd6 where X equals spell's level, etc. The highest level feat could allow for counterspelling to be an immediate action, rewarding the player for following the entire chain.
See, so far to me, feats are mainly a Fighter thing. That is cool and all, but the other classes need more than just crafting items and Metaspell feats. When I played my Cleric I quickly found myself having to go to splat books to find feats I wanted to use. There should be enough cool feats in the core rules to get ya through.
|
|
I'm against counterspelling being easier (i.e. faster) than normal spell casting. Wouldn't mind if you could counter by using the next turn's standard action, but that would call for a whole new mechanic.
I do think counterspelling could be cleaned up by letting any spell of the same school work, as long as it was equal or higher level (excepting metamagic).
I am starting to agree here. Also the one thing I really do not want to see is a bunch of opposed rolls. Opposed rolls take a lot of time, and are a pain. Sort of like AC, it is not an opposed roll- it's math assumes the defender is actively opposing the attacker. Same should apply here.
I think we are getting somewhere really cool here.
Hopefully Jason will like it.
I'm a little tired right now (happy new years! or something), but, wouldn't expending an action to counter an action of limited amount (a spell, for instance), be slightly imbalanced? I mean, I'm sort of light headed right now, and wouldn't a feat that doesn't require you to lose a spell of some slot or lower be a balancing factor worth keeping in the overall effect?
If immediate action, automatic success counterspell I, II, etc. replace the counterspell function of dispel magic, then having to take a feat to gain an ability that requires you to ready an action to make a skill check to possibly counter a spell is OK, but not great. You're still expending an action that does nothing but potentially prevent a spell. The scaling of the skill check against caster level and spell level keeps it from being too powerful, even with bonuses from Skill Focus, etc. (especially since PCs usually face spellcasters of higher level than themselves).
OK, I think I get this but wanna be sure.
Counterspell in general is gone, unless you have the Counterspell feat?
Or use a counterspell I, II, etc. spell, yes.
I like it if that is what you guys are meaning. Then, even if you need to use a readied action it is naturally a part of the caster's normal strategy and not a big deal. Characters that do not take it don't worry about it unless they get Counterspelled- then too darn bad. It becomes something a caster can choose to focus on, and something the GM has to plan ahead to use against the PCs. Not everyone is gonna be Counterspelling.
This could also lead to some nice feat chains. Additional feats can have interesting effects- spell backwashes over its caster, spell's caster is stunned or immobilized for a round, spell causes Xd6 where X equals spell's level, etc. The highest level feat could allow for counterspelling to be an immediate action, rewarding the player for following the entire chain.
That was the other reason to make it a feat. Requiring a readied action, a skill check, and a spell slot (or readied action, dispel magic, and dispel check) to counter a spell, as with the current system, is cumbersome and hardly worth it when a readied attack spell that forces an obscenely high Concentration check from damage can effectively do the same thing. Making it a feat (and making the ability to cast spells a requirement for the feat) as well as keeping the requirement to declare a readied action (standard, move, or swift) helps keep it from being overpowered without needing to expend spell slots. Additional feats (or PrC abilities) to absorb, redirect, or reflect countered spells can make it possible to realize some interesting character concepts that are otherwise impossible.
|
|
OK, I think I get this but wanna be sure.
Counterspell in general is gone, unless you have the Counterspell feat?
Or use a counterspell I, II, etc. spell, yes.
That was the other reason to make it a feat. Requiring a readied action, a skill check, and a spell slot (or readied action, dispel magic, and dispel check) to counter a spell, as with the current system, is cumbersome and hardly worth it when a readied attack spell that forces an obscenely high Concentration check from damage can effectively do the same thing. Making it a feat (and making the ability to cast spells a requirement for the feat) as well as keeping the requirement to declare a readied action (standard, move, or swift) helps keep it from being overpowered without needing to expend spell slots. Additional feats (or PrC abilities) to absorb, redirect, or reflect countered spells can make it possible to realize some interesting character concepts that are otherwise impossible.I like it if that is what you guys are meaning. Then, even if you need to use a readied action it is naturally a part of the caster's normal strategy and not a big deal. Characters that do not take it don't worry about it unless they get Counterspelled- then too darn bad. It becomes something a caster can choose to focus on, and something the GM has to plan ahead to use against the PCs. Not everyone is gonna be Counterspelling.
This could also lead to some nice feat chains. Additional feats can have interesting effects- spell backwashes over its caster, spell's caster is stunned or immobilized for a round, spell causes Xd6 where X equals spell's level, etc. The highest level feat could allow for counterspelling to be an immediate action, rewarding the player for following the entire chain.
Ok, the more I ponder this the more I like it. Anyone have a game running right now that can try it out real quick? My lousy friends wanna play Warcraft for a while... come back to gaming later... dunder-heads!
In the same post stated above here, I've posted my feedback on the whole "Counterspell=Immediate Action" that I've been playtesting.
This are some issues that I've found at the moment:
1)If you try to Counterspell with a scroll or a wand, do you have to ready an action, or you can use them as an Immediate action, too?
2)Is it possible to 'Counter-Counterspell' with this method? I mean, you cast your spell as a standard action and, if receiving an 'Immediate' Counterspell, you use your Swift action for the round to 'Counter' the counterspell itself ?
These are the problems that my players faced with this new 'proto-system'. At the moment, I've decided to solve them in the following way:
1)No Counterspell as an Immediate action with spell-completion or spell-trigger items; if you use them, you must still ready a standard action (one of my players stated that "This is reasonable, otherwise if I wield a Wand of dispel magic, no Wizard could oppose me anymore...")
2)No 'Counter-Counter'; this could be broadened to a generic "no Counter to spells cast as swift or immediate action"
There is still the issue of Dispel Magic, which becomes VERY good with this method; we could simply ban the 'Counterspell with Dispel Magic' or leave it... Currently, I'm keeping it, but our group will see in the future if this becomes too awkward.
Sure, Owen Anderson's idea of the 'Counterspell I-IX' is a stroke of genius, IMHO...
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
After thinking this over and reading the thread, I think the best idea is to have specific counterspell spells with the immediate action casting time as mentioned by others.
However, I'm not a big fan of having 9 versions of them, and making a caster (especially a sorcerer) using up lots of spell slots to have the right ones available and ready to cast.
What if, instead, there were 3 counterspell spells: Lesser Counterspell, Counterspell, and Greater Counterspell as 3rd, 6th, and 9th level spells, which each able to counter spells up to its level?
|
|
For a Skill + Feat, I'd say DC: 10 + CL*2.Which would require a skill check DC of 50 to counterspell a 20th level caster; given a hard limit of + 20 ranks + 3 class skill + 3 Skill Focus + ability modifier on skill checks (unless including extra modifiers), it makes counterspelling almost impossible in a high level game without requiring a starting score of 20, all advances in that score, +5 from wishes, and a +6 stat booster just to gain a 50% chance of success (36 ability score for a +13 modifier to grant a +39 on the skill check) against an equal level caster. A DC 10 + caster level + spell level + casting attribute modifier scales reasonably well with the skill system as is, resulting in a 50% chance to counterspell a 0-level spell by a caster of the same level and ability modifier as a cross-class skill, 50% vs. 3rd level spells as a class skill or with Skill Focus, or 50% vs. 6th level spells as a class skill with Skill Focus.
Actually your proposal doesn't take into account the strong leaning toward geometric which the system possesses at high levels.
Some humble corrections to your math / revealing my own. I belatedly realized that not everyone does math in their head the way I do.
At 1st level: They aren't likely to succeed but that's fine, it'd be a bit of a bastard for level 1 spellcasters.
1 Rank, +3 Class Skill = Skill Total Maximum of 4
At 4th level: They typically can't afford most magical item but the cheapest ones.
4 Ranks, +3 Class skill, +5 from skill bonus (Magic Item) = Skill Total Maximum of 12
At 9th level: They get credit for having Skill Focus at this point.
9 Ranks, +3 Class skill, +3 Skill Focus, +10 from skill bonus (magic item), +3 from Ability Bonus (such as a Headband of Vast Intellect plus six) = Skill Total Maximum of 28
At 12th level: Cost is a non issue
12 Ranks, +3 Class skill, +6 Skill Focus, +10 from skill bonus (magic item), +3 Class skill, +6 Skill Focus (Remember it increases at 10 ranks), +10 from skill bonus (magic item), +3 from Ability Bonus(such as a Headband of Vast Intellect plus six) = Skill Total Maximum of 40
At 20th Level, you can afford everything.
20 Ranks, +3 Class skill, +6 Skill Focus (Remember it increases at 10 ranks), +10 from skill bonus (magic item), +3 from Ability Bonus of +6 (such as a Headband of Vast Intellect plus six) = Skill Total Maximum of 48
With that in mind I'd actually like to suggest that a better DC would be 10 + Spell Level + Caster Level (+ any DC increases) x2.
Which has an average max DC (Without DC Increases)of
1st : 13
4th : 20
9th : 32
12th: 38
16th: 50
20th: 59
At each of these datapoints it is within 11 points so the d20 Roll required is neither automatic or pointless.
|
|
1)No Counterspell as an Immediate action with spell-completion or spell-trigger items; if you use them, you must still ready a standard action (one of my players stated that "This is reasonable, otherwise if I wield a Wand of dispel magic, no Wizard could oppose me anymore...")
2)No 'Counter-Counter'; this could be broadened to a generic "no Counter to spells cast as swift or immediate action"There is still the issue of Dispel Magic, which becomes VERY good with this method; we could simply ban the 'Counterspell with Dispel Magic' or leave it... Currently, I'm keeping it, but our group will see in the future if this becomes too awkward.
Sure, Owen Anderson's idea of the 'Counterspell I-IX' is a stroke of genius, IMHO...
*Blink Blink*
Thats the same problem and solutions sets I had.Owen Anderson, thanks, I lost the Originator of that idea.
At 9th level: They get credit for having Skill Focus at this point.
9 Ranks, +3 Class skill, +3 Skill Focus, +10 from skill bonus (magic item), +3 from Ability Bonus (such as a Headband of Vast Intellect plus six) = Skill Total Maximum of 28
Just where is a 9th level character getting a +10 skill bonus item (10,000gp) and a +6 Int booster (36,000gp)?
At 12th level: Cost is a non issue
12 Ranks, +3 Class skill, +6 Skill Focus, +10 from skill bonus (magic item), +3 Class skill, +6 Skill Focus (Remember it increases at 10 ranks), +10 from skill bonus (magic item), +3 from Ability Bonus(such as a Headband of Vast Intellect plus six) = Skill Total Maximum of 40
Why are you counting Class Skill, Skill Focus, and the +10 skill bonus item twice? OK, they aren't all actually in the total, but it still should be 34 (12+3+6+10+3) by your assumptions.
At 20th Level, you can afford everything.
20 Ranks, +3 Class skill, +6 Skill Focus (Remember it increases at 10 ranks), +10 from skill bonus (magic item), +3 from Ability Bonus of +6 (such as a Headband of Vast Intellect plus six) = Skill Total Maximum of 48
20+3+6+10+3=42.
I'll give you the +6 from Skill Bonus with 10 ranks (missed it). However, that your system requires a character to have Skill Focus and a custom +10 skill item to be useful in high level play is still a drawback, IMO.
With DC (10 + caster level + spell level + spellcasting attribute modifier), if Skill Focus and a custom +10 Spellcraft bonus item would make it an automatic success against 9th level spells from a spellcaster of equal level and a spellcasting attribute bonus equal to the counterspeller's Int bonus, then I'd say I'm hitting it about right (i.e., around 50% chance of success without the +10 skill bonus item). IMO, adding the bonuses for Spell Focus (Greater Spell Focus) on both the DC and the skill check, as well as Spell Penetration (Greater Spell Penetration) on the DC, should be part of the system; up to +6 on the DC.
If you still think it's too easy, you can change it to DC (15 + caster level + spell level + spellcasting attribute modifier) or DC (10 + caster level + (2 x spell level) + spellcasting attribute modifier).
|
|
With DC (10 + caster level + spell level + spellcasting attribute modifier)...
If you still think it's too easy, you can change it to DC (15 + caster level + spell level + spellcasting attribute modifier) or DC (10 + caster level + (2 x spell level) + spellcasting attribute modifier).
While, intuitively, I like caster level being a part of these calculations, that's not how it works in other situations. Caster level is not part of the calculation of the DC of a spell when resisting the effects said spell. Maybe it should be, maybe a 1st-level spell cast by a 20th-level wizard ought to more powerful (I think this is being discussed elsewhere), but right now, it's not. I think it's confusing to have DCs calculated one way for spell effects and another way for counterspelling. If at all possible, it would be a lot 'neater' just use the regular DCs each spell already has. Rather than raising the DC, may lower whatever goes into the counterspeller's side of the equation.
|
|
I do think counterspelling could be cleaned up by letting any spell of the same school work, as long as it was equal or higher level.
Basically giving the current Improved Counterspell feat to everyone. I agree, it is just too much to require that the counterspeller have exactly the same spell available.
Just curious, why not let it be ANY spell of the same or higher level? My thinking above was that when you counterspell, you're actually preventing your opponent's spell from 'becoming,' you're interrupting the shaping of arcane energy before it actually becomes the spell she desires. Maybe if you use a spell of the same school you get a little bonus, and if counterspell with the same spell you get a big bonus. But I think any spell of the same level ought to be enough.
The feat ideas are all interesting but a fairly significant change to the system (which may or may not be what Jason is looking for). I think just opening the current system up to any spell might be enough. It would go something like this:
- You say "I watch the enemy spell caster to see if he casts a spell"
- He does does.
- You use Spellcraft (DC 15 + spell level) to identify what he's casting - Fireball.
- You decide: Do I counterspell with any 3rd-level spell, with another 3rd-level evocation, or with my only Fireball? The closer you get, the better your chances of voiding his spell. Or do you not counterspell and just cast your own spell?
[I realize that in my example you ready the identify his spell, not ready the counterspell. Hmmm... does that work?]
Of the two, adding counterspell I, II, etc. and removing the counterspell function of dispel magic would require the least rule modification. It would also make abjurers really nasty against spellcasting foes.
<snip>
Having both systems would allow characters to pick and choose which one to use in various situations.
I'm worried that specialists who choose Abjuration as a prohibited school are at an unfair disadvantage in a wizard duel. Losing dispel magic (an abjuration spell) already puts them at some disadvantage; counterspell being more effective would increases the imbalance. I think counterspelling is something basic a wizard should be able to do without access to abjuration spells. Maybe counterspell could be universal?
I would like to see that arcane and divine magic are fundamentally different, and a spell slot in one should not normally be usable to counter a spell in the other.
|
|
Okay, this is kinda' random 'cause I know this thread is about Counterspelling, but my post last night gave me an idea about Readying actions (that eventually relates back to Counterspelling).
Right now, Readying an action is a standard action. You Ready and if your conditions are met, your action is triggered. If not, your whole standard action is wasted.
What if Readying an action were just a swift action? "Readying" would describe the process of getting ready, not the getting ready and doing it, as it does now. If your conditions are met, you get to perform your standard action at that time, most likely interrupting your opponents action. But the benefit of making Readying just a swift action are that 1) if your conditions are never met, you can still take your standard action and have only wasted a swift action, and 2) you could actually choose to abandon the readied action if it is no longer appropriate and still get a standard action.
That's where it ties back into Counterspelling. You ready an action to identify an opponent's spell if she casts one. So she does and you identify it [free action]. If Readying were just a swift action, you would still have an available standard action and could still make the decision to use one of your spells to Counterspell, or to just cast a spell (or attack).
Under this model, Readying an action is a lot like Delaying. With Delaying you voluntarily bump yourself later in the initiative order (for free; it's like a free action or a non-action). With Readying you would have the opportunity to interrupt an opponent at the cost of your swift action. It would probably be more clear to call it "Readying an Interrupt Action" than just "Readying an Action." Once the interrupt occurs, you can still make a choice about what to do; the Readying and the swift action cost are for the opportunity to interrupt, not to pre-declare any particular action at that point. And if you decide not to take advantage of it at that point, or you can't because the opponent never triggers, then you basically paid a swift action to Delay - a fair cost-to-benefit gamble and not a horrible penalty even if it doesn't work for you.
This would make Readying actions MUCH more viable, especially Counterspelling, which should cost more than an immediate action but less than a standard action, and shouldn't be a total loss if your opponent decides not to cast a spell.
At this point, my proposal for a new Counterspell system looks like it has three parts:
1) To Counterspell, you Ready an interrupt action (identify an opponent's spell with a Spellcraft check) at the cost of a swift action. [This is mostly described in this post.]
2) After a successful Spellcraft check, you may Counterspell with ANY spell of equal or greater level (with a small bonus for using a same-school spell or a larger bonus for using the exact same spell). You may make this decision, or the decision not to Counterspell, at this point, i.e., you do not have to pre-declare what you will do at the time you say you are Readying an action. [This is described in my previous post, about three posts up.]
3) Some type of a roll to determine if the Counterspell was effective. I'm leaning towards d20 + spell level + ability mod vs. DC 10 + spell level + ability mod (i.e., the regular spell DC). Unless you use a higher level spell, spell levels would cancel out and pretty close to 50/50 modified by ability bonuses. Remember that it's 100% effective now. Under my model, counterspelling doesn't always work, but you can do it a lot more often at less of a cost. [Note: I'd love a formula where caster level factored in, but it doesn't factor in for determining spell DCs right now, so it would be odd to factor it in here. IF the spell DC formula were changed to include caster level, than I would agree that the Counterspelling formula should also include caster levels on both sides. Both or neither.]
Alternatively, the formula could be: d20 + 1/2 spell level + total Spellcraft bonus vs. DC 10 + spell level + ability mod, the logic being the Counterspeller is using his knowledge of Spellcraft to mess up the other guy's spell, but the other guy probably isn't using much Spellcraft, he's just casting.
In summary: Ready and Interrupt Action as a swift action followed by Counterspell as a standard action, Counterspell with ANY spell of the appropriate level, some modified d20 roll vs. the spell's DC to determine whether or not it works.
PS- I'll re-post most of the stuff about Readying an Interrupt Action back in the Combat forum, but I'm afraid that one has lost the limelight and I wanted to make sure it go seen, plus it has a lot to do with making Counterspell more viable. Thanks for reading.
I can't agree more. Though I admit that counterspelling definitely needs a boost in utility, Immediate actions aren't the way to go with counterspells current effect (in my opinion). If anything, wouldn't you have everybody grabbing the new counterspell? Combat spellcasting would change drastically.Immediate-action counterspelling is quite powerful, actually. I've run into guys who prepare Contingency for Duelward (CArcane, SpellCompendium), which pretty much allows them to do that, and it's pretty badass.
But letting everybody do it? Yikes.
Anyways, as to why Counterspelling is never used... personally, I'll just ready something like Maximized Fireball or Arc Lightning in response to an enemy spellcasting. Even if the save is made, the Concentration DC is so high it's undoable.
-Matt
I agree.
Okay, this is kinda' random 'cause I know this thread is about Counterspelling, but my post last night gave me an idea about Readying actions (that eventually relates back to Counterspelling).
Thanks for including the idea here. How would this work with Dragonchess Player's suggestion of readying counterspell as a move action? I wasn't sure how readying a move action is better than readying a standard action, since either way, readying is a standard action.
In your proposal, if the conditions for counterspelling are never met, or if you abandon the readied action, wouldn't you still get both a standard and a move action, since all you've burned is your swift action?
What if readying a standard action costs you a standard action, as usual, but readying a move action costs you a move action, and so on. Then at least you're giving up your move action if you abandon the counterspell (seems like it should cost something). Also it would allow you to counter your opponent's spell (as a move action) and cast your own spell, which I kind of like (although I don't see how dueling wizards would counter each other's spells in that case).